S 


B     M     057     555 


jQ 


THE  BOOK  DIVISION  OF  PROPEKTIUS 


By  B.  L.  Ullman 

The  problem  of  the  book  division  of  Propertius  is  one  that  is 
familiar  to  all  students  of  that  author.'  Lachmann  was  the  first 
to  challenge  the  division  into  four  books  which  the  MSS  show, 
and  to  propose  a  division  into  five  books.  His  views  brought  on 
a  controversy  which  has  lasted  to  the  present  day.  Only  one 
serious  objection,  outside  of  the  testimony  of  the  MSS,  has  been 
raised  against  Lachmann's  theory.  Nonius  Marcellus  (169M) 
under  the  word  sccitmlare  has  Properiius  ElegiariDn  lib.  Ill 
followed  by  a  quotation  of  iii,  21.  1-i  according  to  the  MS  division, 
or  iv.  21.  14  according  to  Lachmann's  division.  The  Lachmann 
adherents  met  this  by  saying  that  the  MSS  were  wrong,  that 
Nonius  wrote  iiii  not  iii.  Mtiller  and  Lindsay,  accordingly,  adopted 
this  change  in  their  editions  of  Nonius,  the  former  noting  that  the 
vulgate  reading  was  iii,  the  latter  making  no  comment  whatever 
in  his  scanty  apparatus.  Quicherat  and  Onions  retained  iii,  with- 
out comment.  Birt,"*  after  a  very  careful  and  searching  investi- 
gation, found  another  solution.  His  theory  is  that  the  first  book 
was  published  separately  and  was  called  the  Monohiblos,  a  name 
which  is  supported  by  MS  authority  and  by  an  ancient  title  to 
one  of  the  apopJioreta  of  Martial.  The  rest  of  the  poems  were 
published,  perhaps  two  books  at  a  time,  to  make  up  one  volume 
under  the  title  of  Elegia.  Naturally  they  were  numbered  from 
1  to  4,  not  from  2  to  5,  as  in  Lachmann's  scheme.  In  this 
arrangement  the  citation  in  Nonius  actually  comes  in  the  third 
book  of  the  Elegies,  as  Nonius  calls  them. 

It  seemed  to  me  desirable  to  make  sure  that  the  MSS  of  Nonius 
actually  had  iii,  not  iiii.  Lindsay,^  in  discussing  the  Nonius  tra- 
dition says:  "Our  original  authorities  for  the  text  are  thus 
reduced  to  (1)  L,  (2)  H'^,  and  for  books  i-ii  med.  PE,  (3)  the 

1  See  Plessis,  Mudes  eritiqites  sur  Properce,  for  a  r^suni^  of  the  arguments  brought 
to  bear. 


^Das  anfike  Bxichwesen,  pp.  41S-26. 
[Classical  Philology  IV,  January,  1909]     45 


3  Class.  Kev.  IX,  p.  357. 


29Hno 


46  B.  L.  Ullman 

extract  MSS,  (4)  Fl"  The  extract  MSS  do  not  concern  us  in 
the  question  under  discussion,  because  they  omit  the  Propertius 
citation.  P  stops  before  this  point,  and  E  in  this  part  is  a  copy 
of  F/  Of  the  rest  I  have  examined  all  but  V,  and  in  addition  all 
the  MSS  in  Leyden.  They  all  have  III  uncorrected,  except  L, 
the  most  important  one,  which  originally  had  IIII,  corrected  by 
erasure  to  III,  a  state  of  affairs  which  nobody  appears  to  have 
noticed.  It  is  impossible  to  determine  who  made  the  correction. 
It  may  have  been  L\  L^  (who  used  a  MS  of  the  "extract"  class), 
or  L*  (who  used  a  MS  of  the  "doctored"  class). ^  The  question 
to  decide  is  whether  the  common  archetype  of  all  the  MSS  had 
III  or  IIII.  The  evidence  is  at  least  two  to  one  in  favor  of  the 
former,  i.e.,  that  of  F'  (which  does  not  change  III  to  IIII),^  and 
ffV  (though  I  have  not  seen  V,  it  is  practically  certain  to  have 
III.  H  has  III,  not  touched  by  H").  I  say  at  least,  because  the 
correction  in  L  may  have  been  made  by  L'  or  L^  from  the  arche- 
type. We  must  therefore  decide  that  the  common  archetype 
probably  had  III. 

There  is  one  other  question  that  seemed  worth  investigating 
in  this  connection.  Hosius*  cites  three  MSS  of  Propertius  which 
quote  the  Nonius  passage  and  have  m  quarto  libro  written  out. 
I  examined  the  three  and  found  that  Vatic.  1612  is  dated  1480, 
Neapolit.  IV.  F.  22  (270)  is  dated  1465,  while  Barber.  VIII.  58, 
though  not  dated,  clearly  was  written  toward  the  end  of  the 
fifteenth  century.  On  the  other  hand,  I  found  that  Ambros.  H 
46  sup.,  which  appears  to  have  been  written  about  1450,  also 
contains  the  Nonius  passage,  but  has  Propertius  in  III.  li'^.  It 
gives  the  Propertius  line  {lam  nitidum  iiautis  aura  secundd: 
iter)  which  the  others  omit,  and  besides,  the  whole  passage  is 
phrased  a  little  differently.  Probably  the  three  later  MSS  give 
a  changed  (and  corrupted)  version  of  the  Ambrosian  MS.     At 

1  Onions'  edition  of  Nonius,  p.  xx,  Lindsay's  edition,  p.  xx^iii. 

2  For  these  corrections  see  Lindsay  in  A.  J.  P.  XXII,  p.  M, 

3  P*  would  not  be  likely  to  overlook  this  point,  as  he  corrects  liqui  t/A/  duin  inuiie- 
diately  after.  I  agree  with  Brown  (Class.  Rev.  IX,  p.  450)  in  assigning  the  dolotion 
to  F".  It  is  in  the  light  brown  ink.  Lindsay,  by  implication,  niukos  it  the  same  hand. 
(Class.  Rev.  X,  p.  16.) 

*  Rhein.  Mus.  XLVI,  pp.  687,  588. 


The  Book  Division  of  Pbopebtius  47 

any  rate  the  presence  of  the  Propertius  line  in  this  MS  shows 
that  its  text  does  not  come  from  any  of  the  other  MSS  or  their 
archetype. 

I  think  I  have  shown  that  the  common  archetype  of  the  Nonius 
MSS  had  III,  not  IIII.  That  does  not  prove,  however,  that  this 
is  what  Nonius  himself  wrote.  The  archetype  may  have  been 
wrong:  the  intercliange  of  IIII  and  III  is  a  mistake  easily  made. 
In  Book  II  of  Nonius  I  find  twenty-two  cases  of  variation  in  the 
MSS  cited  in  Onions'  critical  apparatus.  It  may  be  remarked 
that  seventeen  of  these  show  IIII  for  III,  and  only  five  show  III 
for  IIII. 

Birt's  other  arguments,  though  plausible,  have  not  convinced 
all  scholars,  and  further  light,  if  it  can  be  obtained,  will  not  be 
without  interest.  After  giving  evidence  tending  to  show  that  the 
fiirst  book  remained  separate  from  the  rest  of  the  elegies  during 
antiquity,  Birt  (oj9.  c/7.,  p.  425)  remarks  that  the  Tetrahiblos  was 
better  known  and  more  widely  read  tlian  the  Monobiblos.  Evi- 
dence for  this  is  the  fact  that,  of  eleven  citations  by  the  gramma- 
rians, none  is  from  the  first  book,  and  that  only  among  the  wall 
inscriptions  of  Pompeii  is  there  a  reminiscence  of  a  line  from  the 
first  book.  These  facts  are  still  more  striking  than  Birt  makes 
them.  Eleven  different  passages  of  Propertius  are  quoted  in 
Latin  literature,  according  to  Baehrens'  edition,  most  of  them  by 
the  grammarians.     They  are:* 

ii.  1.  2:    Caesius  Bassus  (K.  VI.  p.  264,  10) 

ii.  3.  24:    Macrobius  (K.  V,  p.  626, 17) 

ii.  9.  41 :    Servius  ad  Verg.  Buc.  v.  21 

ii.  13.  35:    Charisius  (K.  I,  p.  89,  23) 

ii.  13.  35.    De  Dub.  Nom.  (K.  V,  p.  588,  5) 

ii.  14.  1:    Charisius  (K.  I,  p.  67,  14) 

ii.  33.  37:    Charisius  (K.  I,  p.  107,  28) 

ii.  33.  37 :    De  Dub.  Nom.  (K.  V,  p.  590,  24) 

ii.  34.  65-66:     Donatus  Vit.  Verg. 

ii.  34.  65-66:     Anth.  Lat.  I.  264 

iii.  8.  37:     Priscian  (K.  II,  p.  536,  15) 

iii.  8.  37:     Diomedes  (K.  I,  p.  369,  22) 

iii.  11.  15:    Charisius  (K.  I,  p.  103,  17) 

1  The  manuscript  numbering  is  followed. 


48  B.  L.  Ullman 

iii.  11. 15:     De  Dub.  Norn.  (K.  V,  p.  576,  22) 
iii.  21.  14:     Nonius  Marc.  (169  M) 
iv.  1,  11-14:     Lactantius  Instit.  ii.  6 
iv.  1.  13:     Isidorus  Orig.  xviii.  4 

Some  of  these  passages  are  quoted  more  than  once;  in  only  one 
case  is  it  probable  that  the  quotations  are  independent:  iv.  1. 
11-14  are  quoted  by  Lactantius,  and  line  13  is  quoted  also  by 
Isidorus,  who  does  not  seem  to  have  drawn  from  Lactantius.  In 
addition  it  is  clear  that  iv.  10.  44  was  originally  cited  in  De  Dub. 
Norn.  K.  V,  p.  592,  5:  Torques  generis  feminini,  ut  Projyertius* 
Horquem  auream.'^  Keil's  note  to  this  line  reads:  excidit  Pro- 
pertii  uersus  IIII.  10.  44.  torques  ab  incisa  decidit  unca  gula. 
torques  aureae  ex  Varrone  attulit  Nonius.^  Besides,  Baehrens 
gives  two  quotations  from  the  Pompeian  wall  inscriptions,  one  of 
iii.  16.  13-14  in  CIL.  IV.  1950  and  the  other  of  iv.  5.  47-48  in 
CIL.  IV.  1894.  To  this  may  be  added  a  third,  ii.  5.  9-10  in 
Acta  inst.  arch.  R.  1875,  p.  190  (Buecheler  Carm.  epig.,  p.  823). 
The  grand  total  is  sixteen,  divided  equally,  strangely  enough, 
among  the  last  four  books  of  Lachmann's  division  or  the  four 
books  of  Birt's  Elegia.  Actual  quotations  only  are  to  be  taken 
into  account,  and  imitations  cannot  be  introduced  as  evidence, 
because  it  is  not  always  possible  to  tell  which  is  the  imitation  and 
which  the  original.  For  example,  CIL.  IV.  1520  (cf.  add., 
p.  208) ,  has  the  lines 

Candida  me  docuit  nigras  odisse  puellas 

Odero  se  (=  si)  potero  se  (=  si)  non  invitus  amabo. 

The  second  line  is  an  exact  citation  of  Ovid  Am.  iii.  11.  35.  The 
first  has  been  compared  to  Prop.  i.  1.  5. 

Donee  me  docuit  castas  odisse  puellas 
Improbus  (Amor) 

1  Possibly  there  is  a  reference  to  a  lost  poem  of  Propertius  in  the  same  treatise, 
K,  p.  587, 18.  The  MSS  read  ( 1. 16)  "Gotta  nunc  ad  praosepia  ^)  p  U  (so  V ;  M  has  non ) 
sunt  in  praesepibus  boucs  et  Virgilius  plena  ad  praeiscpia  ponunt."  The  tirst  words 
have  been  emended  to  Contra  <Tibullu8>  ;  the  j)  !>  fl  conies  in  the  phico  wIktc  the 
name  of  an  author  should  come,  asKeil  points  out.  It  may  be  a  corruption  of  proper- 
tins,  through  the  stages  properti',  ^)  p  ti'.  This  tils  in  very  well  with  Lachmann's  and 
Birt's  theory  that  some  of  the  poems  of  the  first  bt)ok  of  the  Tetrahiblos  have  not  come 
down  to  us. 


The  Book  Division  of  Propertius  49 

Birt  accepts  this  as  a  reminiscence  of  our  author.  This  does  not 
at  all  mean  that  the  Pompeian  wall-scribbler  had  read  the  first 
book  of  Propertius.  The  aptness  of  the  lines  consists  in  their 
being  direct  quotations.  A  man  is  not  likely  to  make  up  one  line 
and  answer  it  with  a  quotation  from  somebody  else.  Moreover, 
parts  of  the  first  line  are  found  elsewhere  (IV.  1523,  1520,  1528, 
1536,  30-40 )  apparently  written  by  different  people,  which  makes 
it  probable  that  it  was  a  well-known  line  as  it  stands.  In  that 
case,  the  poet  who  wrote  it  may  have  imitated  Propertius  or  vice 
versa. 

But  this  is  not  the  only  evidence  to  be  gleaned  from  the  quota- 
tions. The  one  from  Caesius  Bassus  is  of  particular  interest.  It 
necessitates  an  examination  of  the  nature  of  the  poetical  quota- 
tions to  be  found  in  the  Roman  metricians.  In  general,  it  may 
be  said  that  there  are  two  kinds,  first,  lines  or  parts  of  lines  show- 
ing some  exception  to  a  general  rule,  or  some  other  peculiarity, 
in  which  case  the  choice  of  lines  is,  of  course,  limited;  second, 
lines  illustrating  a  class  or  a  rule,  as,  for  example,  a  hexameter 
line.  Here  the  grammarian  had  thousands  of  lines  to  choose 
from.  Naturally  he  chose  the  most  familiar:  the  first  line  of  the 
Acneid.  Most  of  such  quotations  were  undoubtedly  made  from 
memory,  or  from  memory  refreshed  by  a  glance  at  the  original. 
Citations  of  this  sort  are  not  confined,  however,  to  the  first  line 
or  lines  of  the  Aeneid,  though  these  are  the  ones  most  frequently 
found.  The  first  line  of  the  second  book  also  is  common.  The 
better  known  the  poet,  the  more  various  the  quotations.  So  the 
first  lines  of  many  of  the  Epodes  of  Horace  are  quoted,  though 
those  of  the  first  and  second  Epodes  are  much  more  frequently 
met  with.  The  second  Epode  seems  to  have  been  more  popular 
than  the  first,  to  judge  from  the  number  of  quotations.  In  the 
case  of  the  Odes,  the  first  line  of  the  first  poem  illustrating  a  cer- 
tain meter  is  the  one  usually  given.  For  less  well-known  poets, 
the  range  from  which  quotations  of  this  sort  are  taken  is  more 
limited.  The  use  of  the  first  line  of  the  work  is  the  rule.  The 
case  of  TibuUus  is  in  point.  He  is  quoted  five  times  in  what  may 
be  called  the  "general"  way  (described  above)  by  the  metricians. 
He  is  quoted  once  by  Diomedes  (K.  I,  p.  484,  19)  in  illustration 


50  B.  L.  Ullman 

of  his  definition  of  an  elegy  as  a  poem  consisting  of  hexameter 
and  pentameter  lines  in  alternation.  The  verses  given  are  i.  1. 
1-2,  as  was  to  be  expected.  The  other  four  quotations  are  all  of 
the  line,  i.  1.  6.  It  is  chosen  because  it  is  the  first  "perfect" 
(i.  e.,  dactylic)  pentameter  in  Tibullus;  lines  2  and  4  each  have 
one  spondaic  foot.  In  the  metrical  fragment  of  Keil  VI,  p.  612, 
12,  it  is  quoted  as  a  normal  pentameter  line.  In  the  other  three 
cases  (K.  VI,  p.  616,  15,  p.  127,  7,  and  p.  264,  14),  it  is  quoted 
as  a  pentameter  line  for  use  as  a  base  from  which  to  form  other 
meters.  It  is  now  possible  to  apply  the  principle  just  discussed  to 
Propertius.  The  only  quotation  in  the  metrical  writers  is  that  in 
Caesius  Bassus,  and  this  occurs  in  connection  with  the  Tibullus 
line  just  mentioned  (K.  VI,  p.  264,  10.)  The  passage  discusses 
the  formation  of  the  choriambic  verse,  and  an  illustration  is  given 
of  the  way  in  which  such  a  verse  is  formed  from  a  pentameter 
line:^  ad  summam  pentametrum  heroum,  qui  hahet  dactylos 
primos  duos,  velut  Mine, 

unde  meus  veniat  mollis  in  ora  liber, 

adiedis  duahus  syllabis  longis  fades  choriambicum  ex  heroo 
pentametro  sic, 

unde  meus  nunc  veniat  mollis  in  haec  ora  liber, 

et 

dum  meus  assiduo,  luceat  igue  focus 

SIC, 

dum  meus  hie  assiduo  luceat  hoc  igne  focus. 
The  second  quotation  is  the  one  from  Tibullus,  the  first  is  from 
Propertius  ii.  1.  2.     This  is  surprising.     Why  is  i.  1  not  quoted? 
Is  there  no  normal  dactylic  pentameter  line  in  i.  1?     But  there 
is:  i.  1.  4. 

Et  caput  impositis  pressit  Amor  pedibus 

which  can  be  changed  to  a  choriambic  line  in  this  way, 

Et  caput  (hoc)  impositis  pressit  Amor  (turn)  pedibus. 

Failing  this,  there  were  i.  1.  14,  i.  2.  6  and  many  others  in  the 
first  book.     Why  was  the  first  book  ignored?     Two  answers  are 

'The  manuscripts  are  confused  here,  but  Keil's  text  is  probable.    The  point  at 
issue  is  not  affected . 


The  Book  Division  of  Propektius  51 

possible:  one,  that  the  first  book  wns  not  the  first,  but  was  fftrther 
on,  perhaps  last,  in  Caesius'  manuscript  of  Propertius;  the  other, 
that  it  was  not  a  part  of  the  book  of  elegies  which  Caesius  pos- 
sessed. When  the  other  evidence  is  taken  into  consideration,  that 
of  the  sixteen  quotations  from  the  later  books  as  against  none 
from  the  first,  and  that  which  Birt  adduces,  we  must  conclude  that 
the  second  is  the  correct  answer,  and  we  may  say  with  a  great  deal 
more  confidence  than  before  that  the  first  book  was  not  a  part 
of  the  book  of  Propertian  "Elegies"  known  to  antiquity. 

The  University  op  Chicago 


THE  VERBAL  IN  -TEO  IN  POLYBIUS 


By  Hamilton  Ford  Allen 


The  use  of  the  verbal  adjective  in  -t€o  "from  Homer  to  Aris- 
totle, exclusive"  has  been  studied  and  the  results  of  that  study 
have  been  published,'  so  that  we  have  a  sound  basis  for  the  exami- 
nation of  the  use  of  this  verbal  in  the  Koivq  as  represented  in 
Polybius.  In  view  of  the  completeness  of  Bishop's  treatment  of 
the  verbal,  it  will  be  enough  if  we  present  the  results  of  our  study 
of  the  use  of  the  verbal  in  -reo  in  Polybius  and  refer  the  reader  to 
Bishop  for  comparison. 

1.  Form. — Polybius  uses  a  verbal  adjective  in  -reo  153  times, 
formed  from  70  different  verbs,  simple  39,  compound  31  (B.,  p.  5). 
From  48  of  these  verbs  a  verbal  is  formed  once,  from  11  twice, 
from  2  three  times,  from  3  four  times,  from  1  (Si'Sco/xt)  6  times, 
from  2  [TidrjfjLt,,  ')(^pdofxai)  7  times,  from  1  [rjyeoixai)  13  times,  from 
1  {ecpo),  pr)Teov)  15  times,  from  1  (vofjii^co^  17  times.  Polybius 
is  not  peculiar  in  using  the  same  verbal  many  times  (B.,  p.  5). 
The  verbal  is  formed  from  46  &)-verbs,  from  12  fxat-yerhs  and  from 
12  /At-verbs  in  which  Polybius  shows  no  decided  preference  for 
any  one  class  as  compared  with  the  authors  examined  by  B.  (p.  4) . 
Polybius  does  not  form  the  verbal  in  any  new  way  (B.,  pp.  3  f. ). 

2.  Use. — In  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  majority  of  the  verbs 
from  which  Polybius  forms  verbal  adjectives  are  used  transitively 
a  verbal  used  personally  is  found  but  once  viroSeiKreo';  av  etr]  rpoirof; 
3.  36.  5.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  Polybius  has  studiously  avoided 
the  personal  use  of  the  verbal,  Goetzeler'^  ascribes  this  one  occur- 
rence to  a  scribal  error  and  would  emend  accordingly.  He  thinks 
that  Polybius  uses  the  impersonal  verbal  in  imitation  of  Latin, 
which,  at  the  period  at  which  he  wrote,  said:  oppuc/iuDiduvi  est 
Aihenas;  in  support  of  this  he  quotes  Draeger  and  W()lfllin. 

lOharles  Edward  Bishop  "  The  Greek  Verbal  in  -t.o,"  Am.  Joum.  r/iil.  XX  (1899), 
pp.  1-21, 121-38,  241-53,  cited  as  B.  in  this  article.  For  literature  of  the  subject  see 
B.,  p.  2,  note. 

^Ludovicus  Goetzeler  De  Polybii  Eloctitione  (Wflrzburg,  1887),  pp.  29  f. 
[Classical  Piiiloloqy  IV.  JHUuary,  1909]    52 


fcl 


U  C  BERKtLtrLIBhAHltS 


IHMilii 


CDMMDMSa^q 


RETURN  TO:      CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT 
198  Main  Stacks 


LOAN  PERIOD     1 
Home  Use 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS. 

Renewals  and  Recharges  may  be  made  4  days  prior  to  the  due  date. 
Books  may  be  renewed  by  calling  642-3405. 


DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW. 


^R  2  3  2001 


FORM  NO.  DD6 
50M 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 
Berkeley,  California  94720-6000 


